Harriet Hayes: I don’t even know what the sides are in the culture wars.
Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you are stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you are stupid.Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Nevada Day, Part I

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Are you going to go tattle on me at your pathetic little commie blog again?http://thurstonblog.blogspot.c./..Maybe if you put on some pants and get out of your mother's basement, you can go earn a paycheck instead of crying about the 1 percenters all day.

in reply to Merciful_Fate

Only one problem "occupyabath" - Merciful_Fate isn't registered as an author for ThurstonBlog

Crawl back in your "nucular" bomb shelter and prepare for the end of the world as you know it.

Monday, December 26, 2011

.......................................................Almost too late for the local whiners, but face it, for them every day is Whiners Day!

Dec. 26: National Whiners Day: A day dedicated to whiners, especially those who return Christmas gifts. The celebration, held each year since 1986, culminates with the picking of the year's top whiners.
.......................................................

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Saturday, December 24, 2011

.........................................................
To the Republican, right-wing commenters on articles in the Olympian:
.........................................................

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai E. Stevenson

A Republican congressman from Wisconsin has offered a personal apology to First Lady Michelle Obama after he was overheard at an airport lounge criticizing her "large posterior."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner was overheard loudly complaining on the phone in the Delta Lounge at Reagan National Airport outside Washington about Obama's healthy food initiative.

According to Fishbowl DC, which first reported the lawmaker's remarks, Sensenbrenner was recounting a recent conversation he'd had at church event in Wisconsin.

Obama, Sensenbrenner said loudly, "lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Daniel Bice, Sensenbrenner made a similar remark at the Wisconsin church he was referencing in his phone call, telling attendees there that Obama has a "big butt."

The Wisconsin lawmaker—who, it must noted, is a bit rotund--sent a personal note to Obama apologizing for his remarks, his spokeswoman Amanda Infield tells Yahoo News. She declined to go into detail about what the note said.

In a statement to reporters, the lawmaker reiterated his apology. "I regret my inappropriate comment, and I have sent a personal note to the First Lady apologizing," he said.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Rick Perry promises to send bureaucrats to a "God-awful place." Nice to
see that he still takes an interest in boosting tourism in Texas. -- Dennis DiClaudio
....................................................

Saturday, December 17, 2011

................................................
Friday shortly after noon a woman was attacked on the Olympia Woodland Trail, but so far the Olympian hasn't posted a peep about it (unless they have buried it someplace that isn't evident). At the least they could have posted something in conjunction with the report on the dead body found the day before and not far away from the place where the woman was attacked.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Maria Cantwell's (D-Wash.) position on Plan B emergency contraception is being called into question by her Republican opponent, due in part to the fact that she is an unmarried woman without children and has, according to him, "frequently voted to undermine the role of parents in child-rearing."

State Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R), who is running against Cantwell, sent out a campaign email Thursday with the headline, "Baumgartner Criticizes Cantwell Embrace of Morning After Pill for Young Girls."

"Cantwell is so extreme that she doesn't see anything wrong with 11 year-old girls getting Plan B without a prescription," Baumgartner said. "She is more liberal than Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and more liberal than President Obama. That is pretty extreme -- a lot farther to the Left than most Washingtonians are comfortable with."

Baumgartner was referring to Sebelius' recent decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration's recommendation that the emergency contraception pill Plan B One-Step be made available to women of all ages over the counter, without a prescription. Currently, Plan B is available over the counter to women 17 and older, while those younger than 17 need a prescription.

Cantwell and 13 other Democratic senators recently wrote a letter to Sebelius expressing their "disappointment" with the Plan B outcome and asking for the scientific basis behind her decision.

Obama said that while the decision was Sebelius', he supported her, adding that as a father, he was concerned about the effect that Plan B could have on girls younger than age 13.

In the email, which appears to be part of a series called "CAN'TWELL WATCH," the Baumgartner campaign seemed to suggest that Cantwell had chosen what he views as the wrong stance on the issue because she has no children of her own.

"Baumgartner noted that Cantwell, who is unmarried, has frequently voted to undermine the role of parents in child-rearing," read the very bottom of the email.

When asked by The Huffington Post whether being unmarried meant Cantwell was unqualified to have an opinion on Plan B, Baumgartner emailed, "No, she's certainly qualified to talk about this issue and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just agree with the President and HHS Secretary on this one."

"Maria Cantwell believes that the Plan B decision should be based on the best available science," said Cantwell campaign strategist Rose Kapolczynski. "Washington voters support protecting women's health. You don't need to be married to know that Baumgartner's extreme anti-choice position is out of touch."

A recent Survey USA poll put Cantwell 12 points ahead of Baumgartner, which he touted as showing that "Cantwell is in trouble."

Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, told PubliCola that a 12-point spread wasn't "bad" for Baumgartner since most state residents don't know him yet, but it was far from a reason for him to be optimistic.

"The bottom line is that Baumgartner has a lot of work to do to prove he can run a credible statewide race and give Cantwell a competitive contest," said Duffy. "And, Washington is just a tough state for Republicans in any circumstance, but especially in a presidential year. Whether Cantwell is up 12 points, or 22 points, she retains the advantage here."

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Republicans are reluctant to admit that the payroll tax cut is the wrong kind of cut. They favor reductions in marginal and capital gains tax rates to encourage work, saving and investment. In their world, tax cuts are an incentive to increase the supply of labor -- one’s willingness to work -- not the demand for goods and services.

In order to deflect attention from their philosophical aversion to tax cuts that merely “put money in the pocket of people who will spend it,” as Obama is wont to say, Republicans are touting the Keystone pipeline as a “job creator” in an attempt to make the president look indifferent to long-term unemployment with his veto threat.

And that’s not all. Earlier this month, Senate Republicans rejected measures that would have paid for the payroll tax cut by imposing a surtax on millionaires. Obama turned that to his advantage, charging tax-cut-loving Republicans with refusing to help the middle class while protecting the wealthy.

Round and round it goes. The two parties are so intent on scoring political points and playing gotcha, they can’t even see to what extent their current behavior is countercultural (at least counter to their particular culture).

So the next time you hear someone complain about the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, tell him, nonsense. Hypocrisy is as bipartisan as it gets.
........................................

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

..........................................gotcha123Left wing newspaper...........................................glennI just wrote a note to Tammi McGee complaining about comments being censored and she removed mine. This is really getting out of control...........................................Jon_YAYAIf it's too much for your delicate sensibilities to bear you can always leave.in reply to glenn.......................................... WyoCareful, going against the liberal mantra will get you banned from commenting.in reply to glenn..........................................Tammy McGee, Moderator for TheOlympian.comYou keep getting your comments removed because you keep insulting people, and throwing names at people. Make a comment, and keep your insults to yourself, and your comments will remain.in reply to glenn..........................................Larry_phillOk, so why aren't you consistent? Without mentioning any names there was one person who was insulting people on a daily basis a couple of months ago. That person's comments were never removed, yet some of us still have entire screen names banned to this day. The SAGE thing to do is to be fair across the board.in reply to Tammy McGee..........................................Tammy McGee, Moderator for TheOlympian.comI try to be as consistent as possible, but also (when time allows) I try to read comments in context instead of just arbitrarily deleting. There is only one person who moderates comments on a regular basis, and that is me. I can't be in every story, every minute of every day. Comments that should be deleted do sometimes get missed. Other times, I have deleted comments that shouldn't have been deleted, and tried to get them reinstated when I've been wrong. There are several people on these threads who are very verbally abusive, and I try to give them plenty of rope before I ban them, or start deleting comments, but I do that for everyone. Sometimes I'm inconsistent? Well, the human factor says that's going to happen. All I can do is my best. If you have a problem with something I've deleted or didn't delete, email me, I'll take a better look at the issue.in reply to Larry_phill..........................................gotcha123I see plenty of comments on this site from the left side of the fence that are insulting to people and they are not removed.in reply to Tammy McGee..........................................gotcha123I would like to know why my and other conserative views have been removed from this article. Are you people really that Liberal?????????..........................................Wild_ChildAs in every single Conservative comment has been removed, what does this tell us?in reply to gotcha123..........................................IntertubesThat conservative commenters here tend to be a tad abusive and inflamatory.in reply to Wild_Child..........................................WyoI'd say the same thing about the liberals. The difference is that the conservatives don't want to censor comments they don't agree with and the liberals can't hit the abuse button fast enough.in reply to Intertubes..........................................IntertubesYou would and with perhaps one exception, you'd be wrong. A few regular conservative commenters are unable to state an opinion without including a insulting or inflamatory comment. When will they learn?in reply to Wyo..........................................Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/12/13/1911671/report-1-million-in-wa-without.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1gUGbAh54....................................................

......................................
To accompany Kardnos' previous post:
......................................
"Religion is not entitled to a free ride in the marketplace of ideas. It is not intolerant or disrespectful for atheists to point out its flaws, and to ask whether there's any good evidence to support it -- any more than it would be with any other idea." - Greta Christina Atheist meme of the day: religion is not entitled to a free ride
......................................

Tim Tebow’s success as the quarterback of the Denver Broncos has done little to silence his critics who believe that his faith in Jesus Christ has no business on the football field. It doesn’t matter how many touchdown passes he throws or how many games he wins because Tebow will always be a lightning rod for anti-Christian bigots.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Olympian, here is a new version of the comment posting instructions that you might consider using. I personally like "general assiness"-- covers a whole lot of comments by various miscreants, don't you think?
........................................................
NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party. If you have a problem with a comment, DO NOT REPLY TO IT. -- Courtesy of "SpoilerTV"
........................................................

Saturday, December 10, 2011

............................................Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. - Bertrand Russell
............................................Charlie Brooker's screen burn
Charlie Brooker
Saturday 11 August 2007
The Guardian

In the 18th century, a revolution in thought, known as the Enlightenment, dragged us away from the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages toward a modern age of science, reason and democracy. It changed everything. If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch. Yes, the Enlightenment was one of the most significant developments since the wheel. Which is why we're trying to bollocks it all up.

Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.

Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?

Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.

Inevitably, the world of science and logic is slowly fighting back. Hence the recent slew of anti-God books, one of which, The God Delusion, was written by Richard Dawkins, writer-presenter of The Enemies Of Reason (Mon, 8pm, C4). Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.

In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.

The end result is possibly the most important broadcast of the year so far; important because it presents a passionate argument we really all ought to be having right now, if we want to prevent a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism. And if you think that's hyperbole, I suggest you pick up a newspaper and see how many of the world's problems are currently being caused or exacerbated by the rejection of rational thought. From fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions: a startling lack of logic unites them all.

Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have; the one thing that can save us. If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years. This is an urgent message that must be heard if we want to survive, as a species. Oh. And I'd also broadcast a load of Tex Avery cartoons, just to show off my lighter side. Man, I loves dat Droopy.
............................................

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

"We're hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks" personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. "There's a lot of people who feel sorry for him."

Voters "don't think he's an evil man who's out to change the United States" for the worse--even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should "exercise some caution" when talking about the president personally.

On the call--which Yahoo News was invited to attend because of a mistake by someone on the staff of the Republican National Committee--Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for George W. Bush, encouraged Republicans to turn around Democratic attacks lobbed at the GOP presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, for starters) for "flip-flopping."

"I don't like playing defense," Fleischer said. He suggested the listeners to Tuesday's call label the president as a flip-flopper on the following issues: opposing tax increases for those making under $250,000, opposing the Bush tax cuts, opposing raising the debt limit, and opposing a health care mandate.

"When it comes to flip flopping, Barack Obama is the king of flip flopping," Fleischer said. "You can offer that to anybody," he suggested.
Thompson noted that Obama may be boxed in by similarly strong personal approval numbers for Republican lawmakers as he ponders attacking the GOP House majority during the 2012 campaign.

"Obama running against Congress is not going to work," Thompson said.
In a poll conducted in early November by the Tarrance Group and the Democratic group Lake Research for Politico and George Washington University, voters gave their personal member of Congress a 46 percent approval rating--even higher than the 44 percent personal approval numbers for Obama in the survey, Thompson said. (The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.)

Fifty-eight percent of the voters surveyed disapproved of how Obama is handling relations with Congress, according to Tarrance's November poll.
"It's a tough road for him when you look at those numbers," Thompson said of the president.

Thompson said that his group's research suggests that voters are giving Obama higher approval on foreign policy than on the issue of jobs and the economy.

Voters aren't simply looking at the president as the symbol for a "broken Washington," Thompson said.

Update 3:40 p.m.: Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer followed up with Yahoo News to say the story "misses the point" and that Tuesday's call wasn't about ways to avoid attacking the president, it was about sharing the best strategies for attacks. "It makes more sense to focus on his failed policies than on personal attacks," Spicer told Yahoo News of their data regarding the president.

Ari Fleischer also emailed Yahoo News to share his complete list of Obama flip-flops, which, in addition to the points above, includes: promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term; vowing to lower unemployment below 8 percent following the stimulus; falling short on shovel-ready jobs; contradicting himself on constitutional rights-- condemning Bush but then supporting "warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions, secret renditions and kept [Guantanamo] open; giving lobbyists waivers to work at the White House after saying they wouldn't work there; and refusing public financing in 2008 after vowing to accept it.
....................................................

Herman Cain may no longer be a presidential candidate, but he doesn't need to sulk. His promise to endorse one of the other candidates means political power, and his books and other endeavors will bring him more money.

Saturday no doubt was unsettling and upsetting for Herman Cain. Dropping out of a presidential run under an ethical cloud can’t be fun.

But Cain’s “suspending” his campaign is likely to give him two very valuable things: More money and (at least temporary) political power.

The political power comes with his announcement that he’ll be endorsing one of the other Republican candidates “in the near future.”

It’s not just his enthusiastic followers that’ll be paying attention to the one he throws his arm around. There are those major campaign contributors, some of whom Cain huddled with just before making his big announcement Saturday. Presumably, their money will now go elsewhere among the GOP hopefuls.

The others in the race were tweet-quick to say nice things about Cain just minutes later.

“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan got our country talking about the critical issue of tax reform, and he elevated the dialogue of the primary,” Newt Gingrich tweeted. “I am proud to know Herman Cain, and consider him a friend and I know he will continue to be a powerful voice for years to come.”

(Much of the smart money is on Gingrich getting Cain’s endorsement. They really are friends – both from Georgia – and it’s always good to get on the bandwagon of someone on the political ascent, which is Gingrich’s current status among political insiders and pundits.)

“Herman Cain offered a unique and valuable voice to the debate over how to reform our country’s uncompetitive Tax Code and turn around the economy,” Jon Huntsman said in a press release. “I understand his decision and wish him and his family the best.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann tweeted: “Herman Cain provided an important voice. His ideas & energy generated tremendous enthusiasm for the conservative movement. I wish Herman, his wife Gloria, and his family all the best.”

Rick Perry flat out asked for Cain’s political blessing.

“I would urge any Cain fans looking for a true outsider with a solid conservative record and a clear vision for America to give Perry a look,” Will Franklin, the Texas governor’s media coordinator, tweeted.

As for the money, Cain’s campaign still has about $600,000 in the till, and having “suspended” (not officially ended) his campaign, he still can raise and spend money, even though suspension is just a euphemism for “I’m outta here.”

But that also means his other financial interests – past, present, and future – just became more potentially lucrative.

He can charge more as a “motivational speaker,” his book sales are likely to get a boost, and he may get his own gig on Fox News. Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Gingrich all did. On the liberal side, disgraced former New York governor Elliot Spitzer landed on his feet in a new profession with his own show on CNN. And remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Bill Clinton has written several successful books, including most recently “Back to Work.”

"You take away this [presidential] run and this guy wasn't even on the radar," Rob Frankel, author of "Revenge of Brand X," told CBS’s Political Hotsheet. "Everyone in this country now knows who this guy is, which helps a lot for book sales."

Back to that Cain endorsement.

Gingrich really is in the top spot, according to a new survey by the Public Policy Polling (PPP) organization – especially compared to Mitt Romney.

“On average across six polls we've asked a second choice question on this month 37 percent of Cain voters pick Gingrich to only 13 percent for Romney,” PPP reported this week. “If Herman Cain really ends up dropping out of the race Gingrich's surge should continue in the next few weeks, unless/until something starts happening to erode his popularity. Why? Because Cain's supporters absolutely love Gingrich. And they absolutely hate Mitt Romney.”

If Cain really is “one of you,” as he told several hundred supporter in Atlanta Saturday, then that bodes well for Newt Gingrich.
...........................................

Thursday, December 1, 2011

...........................................
An Olympian reader takes the paper to task:
...........................................

Anonymll

Olympian, what is your problem? Can't stand any corrective criticism? I posted a critical comment at 12:50 pm, and you censored it. You must obviously know that you are in the wrong; otherwise you would have allowed the comment to stand. I also note that you didn't correct the error!

Trying again:... state law at the time prohibited anyone convicted of a sex offense can never have their gun rights restored.Olympian, don't you have anyone on staff who can recognize the poor construction of that sentence? (Geez, and you want your newspaper to be used in the NIE program?)